July 17, 2017

"But is the basic human right to a sexual life the same as a universal entitlement to a young, attractive woman? Because that is what it is being subverted into here."

From "The Trouble With Sex Robots," by Laura Bates... in the NYT, which declines to offer a comments section for this one. It's ironic, because the topic is that sex with a robot excludes the "pesky" interaction with a human being who might not just go along with you.

ADDED: It occurs to me that the preference for a robot over virtual reality reflects a longing for a real human companion. You have this human-sized, human-looking object in your home. Why would you want that? Perhaps to give the feeling you have company, someone to talk to. And it would talk to you. If it were only for sex, wouldn't virtual reality work better and seem more realistic as sex?

There are so many lonely people. Bates seems blind to their existence. You might say: Deprive them of realistic robots so they will be forced to get out in the world and find somebody. But not everyone can do that easily (or without exploiting or manipulating another human being). I don't want to say that anyone is too old, ugly, disabled, diseased, or disagreeable to find a sex partner, but it's a big challenge for some people.

I confess, I don't really understand the problem that the article is trying to pose. Oh, as far as violence against a simulacrum of a woman relaxing moral constraints around violence against actual women -- I understand the argument. It's the same argument (helpfully recapitulated right in the article) regularly made against violent comic books, violent movies, and now, violent video games. And it's one that I'm sympathetic to, although I don't ultimately find it convincing. As I grow older, I find the casual violence in movies more and more painful. When I see cars getting crushed in car chases, for example, or flattened by debris, I imagine the people inside.

And if it were just about women worrying that their negotiating position in the sexual marketplace is undermined by the easy availability of sex robots -- well, that's understandable, although it's not really an argument advanced in the article.

But this --

"But is the basic human right to a sexual life the same as a universal entitlement to a young, attractive woman? Because that is what it is being subverted into here."

What does that even mean? First, it's not a universal "entitlement" (these robots seem quite expensive) if you have to pay for it. Second . . . second, that's just word salad. How is the "right" to a sexual life being "subverted" here? It's not quite colourless green ideas sleeping furiously here, but it's close. I genuinely don't understand the concept the author is trying to express.

Because what the article is limply hinting at is a prohibition that thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human female, which seems kind of monstrous in its own way. I suppose this is sort of how progressives feel when confronted by arguments against cloning or stem cells or gay marriage. There is a moral dimension -- maybe it's the progressive obsession with purity and degradation rearing its head? -- that I do not understand.

"And if it were just about women worrying that their negotiating position in the sexual marketplace is undermined by the easy availability of sex robots -- well, that's understandable, although it's not really an argument advanced in the article."

Don't misunderstand--that's the real argument, or at least the biggest one; but the writer is wise enough to understand that it just wouldn't do to state it outright. Roissy, Rollo, Dalrock, and others will fill in the backstory for you if you care.

But is the basic human right to a sexual life the same as a universal entitlement to a young, attractive woman?

If I have to have people around me who get so morally concerned about my sex life, I'd really much rather have the Catholic Church policing my willy than these clowns. At least, with the CC, in the future, I get life eternal if I'm a good boy & I get Josquin Des Prez in the here & now.

Every woman has a right to whichever size and diameter member provides her maximum pleasure, all currently available though the Amazon portal and no man has any right to judge or even comment. Every man, if he is going to use a sex robot, has a right to one that passes the judgement of womenkind. It's very simple. This is what patriarchy looks like people!

If there's not another human involved, there is no issue. That is why it is being found problematic--because they want that issue to remain, so they can use it for political advantage.

Another way to put it: I used to have a monopoly, and I still do, but now there is a substitute that lots of people like even though it's not the same, and they'll settle for instead of what I'm selling, and so my price has to come down. And that's NOT FAIR.

George Bernard Shaw wrote: "Galatea, the woman who comes to life in the myth, never does quite like Pygmalion. His relation to her is too God-like to be altogether agreeable." I think even the female robots are going to hate us. It's sad.

I do think, seriously, that a lot of young men are going to online porn and masturbation to avoid the hostility in the sexual marketplace, so to speak. Thank God my sons grew up before all this stuff got going.

“There’s a basic human right that everybody’s entitled to a sexual life,” Professor Sharkey said.

Why are leftist professors so confused about rights? Look, numbskull, nobody is entitled to a sexual life. You are free, however, to find someone with whom to consent to a sexual life. Good luck in your search. Try flowers.

It's much more of a contract between consenting parties, then a "basic human right."

Instapundit's wife, Dr. Helen Smith, has been publishing about this development for many years now. With the rise of "women rights," many men say to Hell with marriage. If they can get casual sex through Tinder, who needs the aggravation of a wife? Particularly a wife, who has no interest in taking care of her husband.

If Tinder isn't working, well, soon, I reckon you'll have these sex-robots.

I'm not saying this is a good development. I'm saying it's a natural reaction to the steady push made by feminists to upset the equilibrium between the sexes.

Myself, I prefer what Merle Haggard sung about: we like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo.

Some men probably use them. But men care a lot more about the interaction with a female, even a prostitute is an actual female, BTW, than the orgasms, by and large. That's why men won't really get on board until the experience is closer to what we truly value, which is the entire female form, not just an appendage.

All Republican men should be neutered to render their noodle harmless. They think with their wieners because they have no other option. Humping is so gross that it's called fornication and pornography to be polite. Testosterone is an evil hormone that serves no legitimate purpose except to promote violence and war, and useless hair growth in all the wrong places. It's time for lunch, so I'll leave you with one last thought. Men are dogs, but thankfully dogs are not men.

Sure, it's absurd to talk about "sexual life" as a "human right," and about a right being subverted by access to robots, but methinks (apologies) the gentleman stumbled onto a useful gaffe: for most of the last century, progs have been "subverting" rights into entitlements.

So the objection is not to a sex doll itself, it is to programming a sex doll to have a personality? Professor Sharkey argues against the creation of "Frigid Farah" because a doll who presents resistance to the male user would constitute a way to fulfill a user's rape fantasy. Rape is bad. I'm pretty sure about that. I was raised that way. Since that's true, fostering a fantasy of simulated rape must also be bad. So, is a "Slutty Sue" personality okay? How about a "Hard to please Helen"? A "Nagging Nadine?" A "Wild Wanda"? (I could go on because this is kind of fun!)

Does the sex doll become morally objectionable only because it has a personality, or is it because the animatronics have too realistic? The article suggests the answer is both. After all, if the objection here is to objectification of women, do we need to ban all sexual objects? How does that comport with "There's a basic human right that everybody’s entitled to a sexual life." Really? I had no idea that the Founding Fathers had that in mind when they said "pursuit of happiness." I guess they thought of everything!

"By replicating women as realistically as possible," says Professor Sharkey, "this is what such robots attempt to provide — down to every detail except the pesky necessity for an actual woman’s consent." So do you have to get "consent" from your new sex toy? Exactly how many times do you need to take her out for dinner before she does that? I don't know. It probably depends on what personality you chose when you ordered it. Or perhaps it only depends on how realistic it is. Wow. Life is going to be complicated for our children.

There is a difference between objectifying women and anthropomorphizing objects. It just might be a big difference.

Michael K said...I do think, seriously, that a lot of young men are going to online porn and masturbation to avoid the hostility in the sexual marketplace, so to speak."

It's not just America. I read last week that over half of young Japanese are still virgins at age 30. The young men are afraid of women. They prefer anime and tentacle porn and other weird stuff to interaction with real live females. And the Japanese birthrate is abysmal.

I'm reminded of a character in Laslo's Uncle Bernie movie who has "relationships" with sex toys. There are millions of those guys in Japan.

" fascist left will want to 'tax the rich' in order to subsidize it so they can have it for free."

"Slim, athletic, voluptuous?""Athletic.""Demure, aggressive, sleazy? Be honest.""Sleazy."“Boy, is he gonna have a wild time. He's not gonna want to come back.”

---

My tax lawyer told me, "California tax on sleazy is, actuarially, estimated at an offset against the risk pool of demure, and in your bracket, you pay ..., but wait, for you, you don't have come back ... there are these offshore shelters ..."

Does the sex doll become morally objectionable only because it has a personality, or is it because the animatronics have too realistic? The article suggests the answer is both. After all, if the objection here is to objectification of women, do we need to ban all sexual objects? How does that comport with "There's a basic human right that everybody’s entitled to a sexual life." Really? I had no idea that the Founding Fathers had that in mind when they said "pursuit of happiness." I guess they thought of everything!

"By replicating women as realistically as possible," says Professor Sharkey, "this is what such robots attempt to provide — down to every detail except the pesky necessity for an actual woman’s consent." So do you have to get "consent" from your new sex toy? Exactly how many times do you need to take her out for dinner before she does that? I don't know. It probably depends on what personality you chose when you ordered it. Or perhaps it only depends on how realistic it is. Wow.

I know! Let's pass a law! That always fixes everything.

7/17/17, 3:25 PM

Random lottery. Every month a random woman is paired with a random man. You WILL pleasure each other or face a "stiff" fine (or should I say "hefty")! Its the law!

Also millions in China where access to young females is limited severely by the one child policy.

I see a lot of Chinese kids applying to the US Army, a topic for another day, but lots of the young males have severe phimosis. Their foreskin is so tight they can't slide it back. I ask them if sex or even erections are painful and they just shrug.

I don't think they are getting any, either.

Also I see Chinese girls marrying Caucasians. That use dot be rare because Han Chinese were convinced they are a special people and others are barbarians,

Not any more. I haven't asked any of them but one daughter has Chinese friends and they are marrying white guys, some of whom are teaching in China.

I can't believe people are having this stupid conversation like it's an existential threat to the human race.

This is not some nearly real flesh-and-blood beauty we're talking about banging here. It's a soft mannequin.

I don't care if it looks like Scarlett Johannson, you'd have to be delusional to stop thinking that you're banging Barbie. It makes masturbation romantic and intimate. At least (to round out this thread) it's sex with someone you love.

Watching this play out in the media wants me to go all Dudley Manlove on them.

While I don't have an issue with sexbots--wouldn't mind having one, myself ;-)--, what concerns me is that there will be child-bots and a huge market for them. While it might be better than these perverts using actual children, the idea gives me the creeps. I remember standing in a checkout line one time behind a geezer buying a life-sized little girl doll. He explained to everyone around that it was for his granddaughter. If it really had been, he probably would not have felt the need to explain. Child porn and child sex trafficking is a big problem and I hate to see more on the market to feed these disgusting perversions.

Hey Laura Bates: Robots aren't people. Having sex with a sex-bot, therefore, does not give one "access" to ANY kind of "woman", since women are humans, which is to say, they're not robots.

I can see it now: sex bots + artificial wombs == men no longer have to put up with women's crap. Want to have a guy take you out on a date, buy things for you, maybe marry you and support you with his pay check? Gosh, guess you're actually going to have to offer him something of value in exchange. Otherwise? Enjoy your vibrator

These Hot Sex Robots brought to you by the US Division of Human Rights, the Council on Basic Sexual Rights, the US Dept of Agriculture, The American Green Energy-Sexual Healing Reinvestment Act of 2019, and The AI SexBot Workers Union.

A basic human right cannot exist without consent. Perhaps Sharkey is thinking of natural rights. For example, elective abortion is a natural right, and a sociopolitical rite, to deny the basic human right to life. So, the only human right to a sexual life is either autosexual or with the consent of a partner, perhaps a young, attractive woman.

If they can carry it forward, or backward, as it were, to conception, then it would permanently break the monopoly held by female-females. Then add products from the technopornographic industry, would be a revolutionary disruption that outpaces the feminist and transgender anthropogenic climate changes. Of course, Planned Parenthood would have an incubator in every office, which would fund their Mengele division; but, their abortion business would suffer, so they should Plan for that eventual progression.

As I remember it, the reason why porn was suppressed during my youth was because it was claimed that porn consumption would lead suggestible young minds into depravity and rape. It doesn't have that effect, but it must have some effect although nobody knows exactly what the effect is-- besides, of course, the obvious one.......Sex robots are still somewhat uncanny, but we're still in the primitive, developmental era. They're going to get a lot better.....Men and women aren't perfectly designed to groove on and complement one another. There's some rough congruity but it takes a lot of work to get all the moving parts in sync. I'm not talking strictly about the physical aspects, but also the emotional and spititual aspects of the apparatus. However, there's an algorithm out there that can make you happy. It's very difficult for a real woman to emulate and combine the attractive characteristics of Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday, Kim Novak in Picnic, and Marilyn Monroe in Bus Stop, but that's not such a huge huge problem for a computer to overcome. The robot itself can come with interchangeable heads to facilitate the fantasy.......Women are quite right to be hostile to this technology. John Henry had no reason to welcome the introduction of the pile driver, and Miranda may find herself superfluous in this brave, new world.

As I remember it, the reason why porn was suppressed during my youth was because it was claimed that porn consumption would lead suggestible young minds into depravity and rape. It doesn't have that effect, but it must have some effect although nobody knows exactly what the effect is-- besides, of course, the obvious one...

The rise of the internet coincides with a 50% drop in the number of rapes per capita.

That was always just an excuse. You can't very well tell people "porn should be illegal because I don't like it. "God doesn't like it" used to work before most people lost their faith. But if you can convince them it might, in the absence of any evidence, increase the number of rapes then you can get it banned. Animated child porn is the same thing - everybody (well, almost everybody) thinks it's icky, and even though it doesn't hurt anyone we can still ban this icky thing we don't like if we can use imagined harms as an excuse.

The longer we get a look at Feminism, the stronger the case is that it isn't so much about women's rights as making men as miserable as possible out of some sort of sick revenge for not being asked out to the prom.

She glides into the room in a size 6 cocktail dress and heels. She's carrying a bottle of your favorite white burgundy and a glass. She pours you a glass and hands it to you. Her auburn hair is piled up on ................ green ....... long ...... bzzzt bzzzzzzt. Slap slap. Thanks, I needed that.

the notion that sex robots could reduce rape is deeply flawed. It suggests that male violence against women is innate and inevitable, and can be only mitigated, not prevented.

It doesn't suggest that, it flows from the fact that we know that.

We know one in two hundred men on Earth are male-line descendants of Genghis Khan, which means we know a much larger percentage of the population is descended from him through other lines. And that's just from one mass rapist (and, of course, his many rapist descendants). If Ms. Bates understood and accepted evolutionary biology (including the related mathematics), instead of merely happening to "believe in evolution", she'd understand that a tendency to engage in an activity that is so evolutionarily successful is going to be strongly promoted by natural selection.

If you genuinely understand the human mind is evolved, you know the only way to eliminate the trait rather than mitigate its expression would be mass eugenics. All other conclusions are ruled out unless you reject evolution by natural selection.

And if you do reject evolution by natural selection, well, your choices are either ridiculous and thoroughly-disproved pseudosciences like Lysenkoism, or untestable religious beliefs. So go ask your priest, minister, rabbi, imam, bhikkhu, or equivalent if man is going to stop sinning short of divine intervention. Hopefully they'll be polite enough not to laugh at you.

Imagine the Used SexBot market. Kids trying to unload their late Dad's sex doll (or maybe he wants to be buried with her). A low-mileage model owned by the Little Old Lady from Pasadena, who only used it for a Quickies after Church. The heavily-modified convertible model which tracked the former owner's Transition, with plenty of Spare Parts. Think of the guys at the dealership detailing the off-lease models for resale.

They prefer anime and tentacle porn and other weird stuff to interaction with real live females.

Women are definitely privileged in being able to get by in life without having anything even approximating an honest-to-goodness, real personality.

So I'm not saying that I see their point, but, I see their point.

But by the time I figured all that out I was no longer horny enough to fuck a tentacle. Or a cartoon. Can't even imagine how that would work.

You could say it's cultural - and to an extent it is. And then you realize there are conventions for young adults all across America who dress up as superheroes (a now "mainstream" thing) and freaks who admire each other based on belonging to a clique that dresses up as furry woodland creatures.

People have apparently bred all traces of the mammalian out of themselves.

Ya hear me, Don Trump? SAD!!

Although, he probably identifies with the part where they dress up as superheroes.

Of everyone has a right to a sex life then others can be forced to provide that sex life. No one who believes in consent can believe it is OK to force others to provide a sex life for a person, so therefore the belief that people have a right to a sex lose is incompatible with a belief in consent.

People have a right to a sex life in a rape culture. The quoted professor is objectively supporting rape. Shameful.

The longer we get a look at Feminism, the stronger the case is that it isn't so much about women's rights as making men as miserable as possible out of some sort of sick revenge for not being asked out to the prom

If I was an alien from out of space studying human behavior, have sex with robots makes no evolutionary sense. Well maybe it does, guys willing to fake it for pleasure would make poor sexual mates for real women.

This is a continuation of the discussions in the Guardian after "Humans" and "Westworld" aired. The only correct position was to maintain that there should be no sex with robots/gynoids/snyths and that the next Doctor Who had to be female.

Maugham in Cakes and Ale, describes the second Mrs. Driffield as seemingly "without a back passage", just like Jennifer Anniston. IMO it's Maugham's best work, nothing like Of Human Bondage and Domination.

Wiki: "In The Fine Art of Literary Mayhem, Myrick Land asserts that Cakes and Ale ruined the last 11 years of [Hugh] Walpole's life and destroyed his reputation as a writer." A good day's work for a novel.

Well, I would say "but for the grace of god, go I." I am so glad that none of my sexual perversions include pedophilia. I like full figured women (not obese), with all the curves in the right places (what women see in men is a mystery to me).

I can't imagine what it must be like for a Nambla guy: it's natural, it's normal, but we are shunned by society. As they should and must be.

I'm guessing the impulse is no different for you and me. How are these people meant to get their sexual outlet? Give them the outlet they need, not moralizing. Meanwhile, they cross the line, execute them. Or fake the execution so they won't consider it: whatever it takes.

I think there's a basic human right to freedom with respect to things that belong inherently to the individual, and sex is part of that. It belongs with freedom of thought and freedom of religion and freedom to take care of your own children and freedom to decide how much medical treatment to accept. It's not an absolute right, but it is a right. That's not to say that the government must provide you with sex any more than it is to say that the government must build you a church or bankroll your newspaper.

But if the question is: If you build a robot and want to have sex with it, can the government forbid it or restrict software that has the robot resisting? — then I'm prepared to argue that the government's regulation violates your right of privacy.

Ann Althouse said...I think there's a basic human right to freedom with respect to things that belong inherently to the individual, and sex is part of that.--Is screwing a robot (device) "sex" or essentially masturbation?

OK, so when we say you have a basic human right to, say, health care, what we mean is that you have the freedom to use whatever health care you can acquire on your own. Since we mean rights to indicate not something that must be provided to you, but only something that we as a people cannot prevent you from providing for, and using, yourself.Fair??

The right to free speech means I get to say ugly things that offend you but you have to suffer that offense. You don't have to bankroll my speech.The right to freedom of religion means I get to worship as I see fit and you can't stop me event if you think I am wrong. You don't have to bankroll my church.The right to a sex life means I can pursue sex in whatever way I see fit and you can't stop me. You don't have to bankroll my pursuit of sex and you can't be forced to participate.The right to healthcare means...you have to bankroll my healthcare?? Bit of a problem there.

I grok the difference btw positive and negative rights. I object to those who conflate the two ideas and refuse to make clear which they mean as a method to win an argument without actually engaging with the problem.

I think there's a basic human right to freedom with respect to things that belong inherently to the individual, and sex is part of that.

This is a different framing than Professor Sharkey's statement. It is one thing to say everyone should have sexual freedom. It is very different to say that everyone has a right to a sexual life.

What bothers me about Ms. Bates' analysis is that she's attempting to define an avenue for government regulation of sex robots based on some sloppy utilitarian sums. Her idea is that if a sufficiently realistic robot is used in some way that may trigger sociopathic behavior outside of the realm of sexual privacy, the law has the right to intervene.

This is a reductive and unimaginative argument. Much more interesting, I think, are the robot and android questions.

In Star Wars, are robots people or machines? The human characters have rich interactions with their robot companions. Robots are autonomous, but also clearly subordinate. I'd argue that Star Wars robots are essentially very smart pets. Lassie. Trigger. Which leads to what I think is a more interesting question than the legal one: as humanoid robots became increasingly realistic, what kind of relationship develops between the robot and the people that own them? Not sociopathic people that Bates focuses on, but normal people?

In Blade Runner, androids are created for multiple uses include combat, police work, and sex. At what point does the simulation of intelligence in a robot cross over to artificial intelligence? This is when subordinating the robot becomes ethically strained. Is this even possible? Not at the moment, but speculatively it's the problem that Philip K. Dick drew up.

I don't care if you want to use the word "sex" to refer only to "intercourse" (i.e., a flowing between). But the right of privacy has to do with the intimacy of one's own body, such as decisions about medical treatments and whether to go through with a pregnancy. It encompasses masturbation whether you want to call it "sex" or not. I see the linguistic interest in disagreeing with people who say things like "I had sex 10 times last week," when they just masturbated, but that's irrelevant to this inquiry.

But if the question is: If you build a robot and want to have sex with it, can the government forbid it or restrict software that has the robot resisting? — then I'm prepared to argue that the government's regulation violates your right of privacy.

As I just said, it doesn't matter. But as a matter of word usage, I would say "sex education" should cover masturbation. And a desire to masturbate is a sexual feeling. "Sex" as shorthand for "sexual intercourse" is more or less just slang anyway.

We know that at the time that the 14th Amendment was written, the broad consensus in the U.S. was that masturbation was sinful and unhealthy, that abortion was murder and sex with robots inconceivable. Yet somehow Congress managed to write, and the States to pass, an Amendment to the Constitution that granted rights to all of these things, without mentioning any of them.

"Sec. 173.010. FINES RELATED TO MASTURBATORY EMISSIONS... (a) Emissions outside of a woman’s vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility, will be charged a $100 civil penalty for each emission, and will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life."

"We know that at the time that the 14th Amendment was written, the broad consensus in the U.S. was that masturbation was sinful and unhealthy, that abortion was murder and sex with robots inconceivable. Yet somehow Congress managed to write, and the States to pass, an Amendment to the Constitution that granted rights to all of these things, without mentioning any of them."

Read the Declaration of Independence. We are born with rights. We have rights because of our humanity. In various places in constitutional text, there are explicit directions not to abridge these rights.

" the broad consensus in the U.S. was that masturbation was sinful and unhealthy"

We have the liberty to do many, many things that are sinful and unhealthy.

It is the realm of religion to speak of sin. To say it is sin means you look to religion as the answer. To look to religion is to look somewhere other than to the government.

As for health, that is for the individual (unless you're talking about controlling the spread of disease or about paying for treatments). The body itself reacts if you do what is unhealthy. It's its own enforcement.

What the 14th amendment does it protect liberty, to keep govt out of what inherently belongs to the individual. That it's a matter of religion and health underscores that this is something for the individual.

Excuse me, I missed where you made that distinction. I guess I was confused by:

It belongs with freedom of thought and freedom of religion and freedom to take care of your own children and freedom to decide how much medical treatment to accept. It's not an absolute right, but it is a right. That's not to say that the government must provide you with sex any more than it is to say that the government must build you a church or bankroll your newspaper.

I just assumed that you meant "federal government" when you said "government".

My bad.

In any case my reply would then be that it depends on the text of each of the fifty state Constitutions....which is why your side usually falls back on the 14th Amendment so the federal government can bigfoot the State governments. You can understand why I was confused.

Read the Declaration of Independence. We are born with rights. We have rights because of our humanity. In various places in constitutional text, there are explicit directions not to abridge these rights.

See? As soon as we start discussing state governments and constitutions, you immediately resort to the federal Constitution.

Does anyone think the government has a legitimate power to regulate masturbation that is done in private?I'll bet it was illegal sometime somewhere, maybe not the USA, thank God and the Founding Wankers.

In any case, I reject the idea that an Amendment designed to extend pre-existing federal protections of rights to the States can be used to justify the creation of new federal protections by activist judges.

Ann Althouse said...The right is to be free from government intrusion into what belongs to the individual.

Really? Then why don't i have a right to commit suicide? Is it not my life?

For that matter, I don't see how the War on Drugs and an actual right to freedom "from government intrusion into what belongs to the individual" can coexist. Why can't I shoot up heroin in the privacy of my own home? For that matter, why don't I have the right to shoot up Human Growth Hormone in the privacy of my own home?